Knowing that the question is a "most likely to agree" question, I know that I need to stick very closely to what's written, and make reasonable baby-steps away from what's written only if I have to.

So the question essentially asks "Where does the author stand on solar power?"

This is mostly discussed in the 2nd paragraph, and a little in the first. The author seems to think it's a good idea, along with other renewables (paragraph 1), and cites the Brazil example to show that the implementation of renewables isn't always good.


(A) "previous difficulties" refers to the second paragraph -- Brazil, 1992. And it seems reasonable that the author would agree that solar can be profitably implemented. True, we don't have a clear statement to support "many countries," but we have no evidence against it, either. So far this is the best choice in the pool. The "cream of the crap," you might say.

(B) clearly the author does not think solar is impractical

(C) the author makes no comparison between rural and dense areas

(D) the author makes no comparison between solar and wind

(E) we have no evidence that the author thinks solar is not viable. In fact, based on paragraph 1 the author seems to have a good opinion about the viability of various renewables. And as for paragraph 2, well it's the implementation that the author found fault with, not the technology itself.

Hope that helps!

_________________
Every once in awhile I host a free online workshop/question&answer session. called Zen and the Art of LSAT You can check out a few recordings from past sessions here: http://www.manhattanlsat.com/zen-and-the-art.cfm

My issue with this question is this--

the author never makes any indication that although solar electrical systems didnt work in Brazil, they can be implmented profitably in many countries--my main cause for eliminating it was the fact that it was so strong--that they CAN be implemented in MANY countries? I felt it was way too strong a claim to make without any sufficient support.

I chose C because at the beginning of paragraph 2 it says "the lack of necessary infrastructure has limited effort to provide it" Now, I understand that infrastructure is not synonomous with being densely populated--BUT a densely populated area would have more residents that would be able to participate in implementing the process (which the last sentence indicates is key--local involvement at all levels) and so it would seem that the author would support this idea. It's not perfect, but A just seemed like a choice that would be wrong b/c of lack of support and b/c it's too strong a claim.

It's so frustrating that methods about eliminating incorrect answers that I pick up on other PT's don't seem to apply. Usually if something is too strong a statement to be supported, it is not the correct answer. AH! Had to vent that

Hey there.

(C) is really, really far out. Nowhere in the passage does the author make a distinction between rural and densely populated areas. You are making tons of assumptions by saying that densely populated areas would be more likely to have local involvement, and it's a big mistake to even try to make those two concepts relate.

I agree that we can't prove that the author agrees with any of these choices, and that the use of "many" in the correct answer is a little uncomfortable. And that's not what we're being asked to do. We just need to choose the one that the author is most LIKELY to agree with.

So use your general knowledge of the passage here. What does the author think about renewable resources? Yay! And solar electricity? Yay! And, didn't work in Brazil due to a couple of identified errors. So the author feels good about the prospects for solar and alternative energy -- that's why the passage was written -- and illustrates how improvements might be made by critiquing two specific cases. So if I had to guess what the answer might say from the beginning, I'd think "solar electrical systems are good, and not always well-installed." This is almost exactly what (A) says.

Remember that your job is not to choose a choice and defend it imaginatively. Your job is to get rid of things that are in no way supported and then begin to narrow things down. In this case, (A) is more or less generally supported throughout, and (C) is too specific, and plain old unsupported -- it wasn't a lack of dense population that made the Brazil project fail, it had more to do with money and local vs foreign participation.

Hope that helps!

_________________
Every once in awhile I host a free online workshop/question&answer session. called Zen and the Art of LSAT You can check out a few recordings from past sessions here: http://www.manhattanlsat.com/zen-and-the-art.cfm